The Advanced Placement Program and Gifted Learners: A Comparative Study of Success David Clark, George W. Moore, and John R. Slate Sam Houston State University
Abstract Given the growing number of districts that have adopted the Advanced Placement program as the sole means for serving their Gifted students at the secondary level, it was surprising to us that no published empirical quantitative studies were located in which the effectiveness of Advanced Placement (AP) courses in meeting the learning needs of exceptional studies was examined. Moreover, because AP courses are open to all students, whether identified as Gifted or not, no empirical data are available which suggests that exceptional learners in these courses benefit any more or less than the rest of the student body enrolled in them. In this study, we examined differences between AP course enrollment, test participation rates, and test scores in students identified as Gifted compared to non-identified students. Using archival data from one large urban school district in the Southwest, Gifted students had statistically significantly higher rates of course enrollment, higher rates of test participation, and overall test success when compared to non-indentified students, with effect sizes ranging from small to large by topic (.19 to.52).
The Advanced Placement Program and Gifted Learners: A Comparative Study of Success Program options for gifted students at the high school level have been and remain severely lacking (Sytsma, 2000). In lieu of strategies targeted toward exceptional learners, school districts have embraced the College Board s Advanced Placement (AP) program as one of the few means of serving their gifted populations at the secondary level (Callahan, 2003; Daniel & Cox, 1992; Feldhusen, 1995; Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Pyryt, Masharov, & Feng, 1993; Sytsma, 2000; Vanderbrook, 2006). Due to its overwhelming acceptance as an accommodation for exceptional learners, an analysis of gifted student success within the AP program is long overdue. The Advanced Placement Program Spearheaded by the Ford Foundation in the 1950 s, the Advanced Placement program was one of the first initiatives in the country that sought to align secondary schools and colleges (Callahan, 2003; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). From its humble beginnings as a pilot program involving 7 schools and 11 subjects, the AP program has grown to the extent that today students may earn college credit in 37 courses in 22 subject areas by scoring a 3, a 4, or a 5 on an AP examination (College Board, 2008a). In 2008 alone, over 1.5 million students took 2.7 million AP tests in the United States, with 57.4% of those exams scored receiving a 3 or higher (College Board, 2008b). The College Board itself does not assign college credits, but, rather, they are assigned according to the policy of the college or university to which the student applies for credit (Morgan & Ramist, 1998). Whereas a score of 3 is typically seen as the benchmark for
success, many highly selective colleges and universities require a 4 for credit consideration, and some of the most prestigious schools in the nation require a 5 (Lichten, 2000). The popularity and explosion of the AP program in the past decade has been attributed, for the most part, to state and federal funds being made available to school districts for the purpose of training AP teachers, subsidizing AP test fees for students, and providing materials for AP courses (Callahan, 2003; College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service, 1999; Van Tassel-Baska, 2001). Callahan (2003) also suggested that a lack of other challenging options at the secondary level has left high achieving and exceptional learners nowhere else to go but to AP courses. As it stands today, the AP program is touted as the best single indicator of high school success, and the most regularly used predictor of future college success (Curry, MacDonald, & Morgan, 1999; Hansen, 2005; Kaye, 2006; Klopfenstein, 2004). The Advanced Placement Program and Secondary Gifted Students Despite the fact that the AP program was not intended to meet the needs of exceptional learners (i.e., gifted and talented students), it comprises one of the sole options for those students in most secondary schools (Sytsma, 2000; Vanderbrook, 2006). In 2001, Van Tassel-Baska advocated for the acceptance of the AP program as an appropriate instructional option for gifted secondary learners, citing (a) opportunities for acceleration, (b) emphasis on higher order thinking skills and advanced concepts, (c) course options in the fine arts, (d) potential to engage gifted students in some form of grouping, and (e) the ability of students to chose courses which provide them with an optimal match for their talents as key factors in her endorsement. In 2004, Colangelo et al. followed suit by declaring acceleration the most effective curriculum
intervention for gifted students, and praising the AP program for the numerous opportunities it provided such students. Research regarding the proper fit of the AP program to the needs of gifted students has been limited primarily to a handful of qualitative studies. Vanderbrook s (2006) interviews with intellectually gifted female students in the AP and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs revealed that all participants reported academic and emotional support from teachers and peers within the two programs that they had not experienced elsewhere, even though most students also encountered hardships. Hertberg-Davis and Callahan (2008) also stated that gifted students reported they were appropriately challenged in AP and IB courses, and rated being surrounded by peers as one of the primary benefit of the programs. It is interesting to note that in both studies, students placed an overwhelming amount of emphasis on the caliber of their AP teachers as being directly responsible for their engagement and success in the courses. This finding was particularly noteworthy given the fact that AP teachers are not required to have any formal training in Gifted and Talented education to teach College Board courses (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Vanderbrook, 2006). Lacking in the available research on the topic of the fit of the Advanced Placement Program to gifted students is a quantitative analysis on the actual success of exceptional learners success both in and of itself, and success as compared to other students enrolled in the same courses. In this article, we seek to fill that gap in the research.
Purposes of the Study One of the purposes of this paper was to analyze the demographic characteristics of identified gifted students in a large school district for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic school years. Another purpose was to ascertain the extent to which gifted students were differentially enrolled in and successful in their Advanced Placement courses as opposed to other students enrolled in AP courses. Research Questions We addressed the following research questions in this study: (a) What are the characteristics of students, separated by gender, ethnicity, grade level, and economically disadvantaged, who were identified as Gifted and Talented for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic school years?; (b) What is the difference between gifted and the other students in enrollment in Advanced Placement courses for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic school years?; (c) For those students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, what are the differences between gifted and the other students in terms of the course areas in which they are enrolled?; (d) For those students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, what are the differences between gifted and the other students in terms of participation rates on the end-of-course Advanced Placement examinations?; and (e) For those students who participate in the end-of-course Advanced Placement examinations, what are the differences between gifted and the other students in terms of scores on the assessments?
Method Participants Data from one urban independent public school district in the State of Texas for the school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were utilized in this study. For the 2005-2006 school year, 5,591 students in the 11th and 12th grades were examined in terms of their enrollment in AP courses and their inclusion in the district s Gifted and Talented program. Of those 5,591 students, 50.5% were male, and 49.5% were female. Concerning ethnic membership, 55.9% were White, 18.5% were Hispanic, 16.7% were African American, 8.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.4% were Native American. For the 2005-2006 school year the majority of the students were enrolled in the 12th grade (53.5%), followed by the 11th grade (46.5%). Finally, 18.9% were identified as economically disadvantaged, whereas 81.1% were not identified as being economically disadvantaged. For the 2006-2007 school year, 6081 students in the 11th and 12th grades were examined in terms of their enrollment in AP course and their inclusion in the district s Gifted and Talented Program. Of those 6081 students, 49.5% were male, and 50.5% were female. Concerning ethnic membership, 52.5% were White, 22.1% were Hispanic, 16.6% were African American, 8.4 % were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.4% were Native American. The majority of the students were enrolled in the 11th grade (50.7%) for the 2006-2007 school year, followed by the 12th grade (49.3%). Also, 20.9% were identified as being economically disadvantaged, whereas 79.1% were not identified as being economically disadvantaged.
Identification of Gifted Students One of the limitations of all studies regarding exceptional learners is the still debated concept of what it means to be gifted. Callahan (2003) noted that, even though a uniform understanding does not exist of the concept of giftedness, educators continue to make decisions regarding curriculum program options and services for students identified as being gifted. Donovan and Gross (2002) expanded upon the problem by pointing out the vast differences that exist between moderately gifted and highly gifted students in terms of ability and needed services. In the absence of a clear and definable definition of what it means to be gifted, school districts typically set local criteria for inclusion. In this study, students were identified as gifted if they scored in the top 10% nationally on both a locally administered ability test (in this case, the Naglieri Non-Verbal Assessment from Pearson Assessment) and a locally administered achievement test (in this case, the Stanford-10 assessment from Pearson Assessment), and met pre-determined scores on teacher and parent recommendation checklists. Instrumentation and Procedures Archival data were acquired from a large urban independent school district in the State of Texas for the school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The collected data represented the entire 11th and 12th grade classes for both academic years and focused on AP course enrollment, AP examination results, and student inclusion in the district s Gifted and Talented program. Specifically, data were obtained on gender, ethnicity, grade level, economically disadvantaged status, Gifted and Talented program designation, subject focus and name of AP courses enrolled, number of AP courses enrolled, whether or not an AP exam was taken in an enrolled course, and results for all AP examinations taken.
The senior researcher selected each of the variables analyzed in this study and downloaded them into an Excel file. From the Excel file, all variables were screened for accuracy and then converted into an Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 16 (SPSS) database. Then analyses were conducted to address each of the research questions previously mentioned. Results Table 1 depicts the numbers and percentage of high school students in this urban school district who were identified as gifted for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years, separated by gender, ethnicity, grade level, and economic status. Females were disproportionately identified as being gifted in the 2005-2006 school year (57.8%) and the 2006-2007 school year (59.6%) when compared to the overall percentage of females in the district for both years (49.5% and 50.5% respectively). An examination of ethnicity revealed substantial disparities between the ethnic composition of the district and the ethnic composition of students in the Gifted and Talented program. Asian/Pacific Islander students, comprising one of the smaller ethnic groups in the district, were the most overrepresented group by far almost by a factor of two. White students, though accounting for the largest ethnic group in the district in the 2005-2006 school year (55.9%) and the 2006-2007 school year (52.5%), were also overrepresented in the Gifted and Talented program for both years (74.1% and 72.7%, respectively). Conversely, African Americans were substantially underrepresented in the program (n = 17, 2.8% in the 2005-2006 school year and n = 23, 3.5% in the 2006-2007 school year) when their total representation in the district for both academic years was taken into account (16.7%
and 16.6%, respectively). Hispanics, though slightly better represented in the program for both years (6.7% and 9.2% respectively) were still underrepresented relative to their overall presence in the district (18.5% and 22.1%, respectively). For the 2005-2006 school year, the percentage of 11th grade students labeled as Gifted and Talented (56.8%) was significantly higher than that in the 12th grade (43.2%). In the 2006-2007 school year, the percentage of 12th grade students (53.9%) identified as Gifted and Talented was substantially higher than that in the 11th grade (46.1%). Finally, for both years, the percentage of students labeled as Economically Disadvantaged and identified as Gifted and Talented (4.3% and 5.1%, respectively) was substantially lower than those students not labeled as such (95.7% and 94.9%, respectively). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for 11th and 12th Grade Students for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 School Years (Continued) Identified Students Gifted Non-Identified Gifted Students District Variable n % n % n % 2006-07 School Year Male 263 40.4 2748 50.6 3011 49. Female 388 59.6 2682 49.4 3070 50. Asian/Pacific Islander 95 14.6 414 7.6 509 8.4 African American 23 3.5 989 18.2 1012 16. Hispanic 60 9.2 1286 23.7 1346 22. Indian Alaskan 0 0.0 23 0.4 23 0.4
White 473 72.7 2718 50.1 3191 52. 11th Grade 300 46.1 2785 51.3 3085 50. 12th Grade 351 53.9 2645 48.7 2996 49. Economically Disadvantaged 33 5.1 1237 22.8 1270 20. Non-Economically Disadvantaged 618 94.9 4193 77.2 4811 79. Next, Advanced Placement enrollment data was examined in relation to gifted and the other students. In both academic years, an identified gifted student was roughly four times more likely to enroll in an Advanced Placement course (81% and 83.6%, respectively) than a nonidentified student (16.8% and 19.9%, respectively). To determine the statistical extent of these differences, Pearson chi-squares were conducted. Pearson chi-square analyses are appropriate when both variables are categorical in nature such as with gifted or non-identified status and enrollment or non-enrollment in an AP course. The result was statistically significant for the 2005-2006 school year, χ 2 (1) = 1218.00, p <.001, and for the 2006-2007 school year, χ 2 (1) = 1202.00, p <.001. In both cases the effect sizes, Cramer s V, were moderate (.47 and.45, respectively) (Cohen, 1998). In addition, identified gifted students who enrolled in AP courses were substantially more likely to enroll in more than one AP course (n = 345, 71.1% in the 2005-2006 school year and n = 428, 78.7% in the 2006-2007 school year) than non-identified students (46.2% and 52.4%, respectively). To determine the extent of these differences, Pearson chi-squares were conducted, using gifted and non-identified status in relation to four enrollment categories: (a) No courses, (b) 1 course, (c) 2-3 courses, or (d) 4 or more courses). The result was statistically significant for
the 2005-2006 school year, χ 2 (3) = 1529.00, p <.001, and for the 2006-2007 school year, χ 2 (3) = 1600.00, p <.001. In both cases the effect sizes, Cramer s V, were large (.52 and.51, respectively) (Cohen, 1998). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Advanced Placement Course Enrollment for 11th and 12th Grade Gifted and Non-Gifted Students for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 School Years Identified Students Gifted Non-Identified Gifted Students Variable n % n % 2005-06 School Year Not Enrolled in an AP Course 114 19.0 4153 83.2 Enrolled in an AP Course 485 81.0 839 16.8 Enrolled in 1 AP Course 140 23.4 451 9.0 Enrolled in 2-3 AP Courses 247 41.2 354 7.1 Enrolled in 4 or more AP Courses 98 16.4 34 0.7 2006-07 School Year Not Enrolled in an AP Course 107 16.4 4348 80.1 Enrolled in an AP Course 544 83.6 1082 19.9 Enrolled in 1 AP Course 116 17.8 514 9.5 Enrolled in 2-3 AP Courses 276 42.4 486 9.0
Enrolled in 4 or more AP Courses 152 23.3 82 1.5 Enrollment in specific Advanced Placement subject areas was then studied in relation to giftedness to determine the disparity between the two groups. Table 3 depicts these percentages separately for gifted students and non-identified students. For both years, the percentage of students enrolled by course for both groups appear to be very similar, with slight differences in Fine Arts, Science, and Social Studies. To determine whether gifted to non-identified student differences were present in regard to Advanced Placement course selection, Pearson chi-squares were conducted. Pearson chi-square analyses are appropriate when both variables are categorical in nature such as with gifted or non-identified status and enrollment or non-enrollment in specific courses. The result was statistically significant for the 2005-2006 school year, χ 2 (6) = 26.26, p <.001, and for the 2006-2007 school year, χ 2 (6) = 48.19, p <.001. In both cases the effect sizes, Cramer s V, were small (.10 and.11, respectively) (Cohen, 1998). Table 3 Advanced Placement Courses in Which Gifted and Non-Gifted Students were Enrolled for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 School Years Identified Gifted Non-Identified Students Gifted Students Variable % % 2005-06 School Year Computer Science 4.8 4.5
Fine Arts 3.7 6.4 Foreign Language 1.3 1.3 Language Arts 29.5 28.3 Mathematics 17.7 15.1 Science 9.0 5.7 Social Studies 33.9 38.8 2006-07 School Year Computer Science 4.5 3.4 Fine Arts 3.8 5.0 Foreign Language 3.9 4.8 Language Arts 25.5 29.6 Mathematics 18.7 14.8 Science 8.8 4.5 Social Studies 34.9 37.9 Students who are enrolled in AP courses are not required to take an AP course exam unless they want to receive college credit for the course. As such, many students who enroll in and complete AP courses do not take the exams. To determine the extent in which giftedness was related with participation on AP exam, participation rates were determined for each group and further broken down by the number of courses in which each group was enrolled. As shown in Table 4, the mean number of tests taken by the number of courses enrolled were higher for gifted
students than for non-identified students in both years and in all categories except one (nonidentified students enrolled in 7 courses for the 2006-2007 school year, n = 2). For the 2005-2006 school year, gifted students took 70.1% of all AP exams available to them compared to 49.7% for non-identified students. In the 2006-2007 school year, gifted students took 67.2% of all AP exams available to them compared to 53.3% for non-identified students. To determine the extent of the difference between gifted and non-identified students in regard to test participation rates, Pearson chi-squares were conducted, using gifted and non-identified status in relation to four test participation categories: (a) 0-25% of tests taken for enrolled courses, (b) 26-50% of tests taken for enrolled courses, (c) 51-75% of tests taken for enrolled courses, and (d) 76-100% of tests taken for enrolled courses. The result was statistically significant for the 2005-2006 school year, χ 2 (3) = 92.90, p <.001, and for the 2006-2007 school year, χ 2 (3) = 60.00, p <.001. In both cases the effect sizes, Cramer s V, were small (.27 and.19, respectively) (Cohen, 1998). Table 4 Advanced Placement Examination Participation Rates by Number of Courses Enrolled for Gifted and Non-Gifted Students for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 School Years Number of AP Courses Enrolled Identified Gifted Students Non-Identified Gifted Students n M SD n M SD
2005-06 School Year 1 140 0.57 0.50 451 0.43 0.50 2 159 1.42 0.79 265 1.11 0.88 3 88 2.25 0.90 89 1.48 1.17 4 57 3.00 1.10 29 1.97 1.48 5 36 3.50 1.40 5 2.60 1.52 6 5 4.20 1.79 0 2006-07 School Year 1 116 0.51 0.50 514 0.41 0.49 2 165 1.36 0.82 366 1.20 0.86 3 111 2.12 1.07 120 1.72 1.16 4 79 2.49 1.42 53 2.06 1.54 5 46 3.70 1.58 22 2.82 1.30 6 24 4.29 1.08 5 3.20 0.84 7 3 4.67 1.53 2 5.50 2.12 With a score of at least a 3 being necessary to receive college credit (College Board, 2007), Table 5 shows the percentage of gifted students and non-identified students who took the AP exams who would be eligible for college credit if the determining college or university accepted a score of 3 or higher. For the 2005-2006 school year, 78.4% of all tests taken by gifted students had a 3 or higher, compared to 49.2% for non-identified students. For the 2006-2007
school year, 73.5% of all tests taken by gifted students had a 3 or higher, compared to 48.5% for non-identified students. Table 5 Advanced Placement Examination Scores for Gifted and Non-Gifted Students for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 School Years Identified Students Gifted Non-Identified Gifted Students AP Examination Score n % n % 2005-06 School Year 0 7 0.8 13 1.8 1 46 5.4 141 19.3 2 132 15.4 217 29.7 3 275 32.2 202 27.6 4 229 26.8 116 15.9 5 166 19.4 42 5.8 2006-07 School Year 0 5 0.5 1 0.1 1 60 5.7 233 19.9 2 215 20.3 369 31.5 3 302 28.6 317 27.1
4 292 27.6 163 13.9 5 183 17.3 87 7.4 To determine the extent to which differences between the two groups on examination scores was present, Pearson chi-squares were conducted. The result was statistically significant for the 2005-2006 school year, χ 2 (5) = 184.30, p <.001, and for the 2006-2007 school year, χ 2 (5) = 211.20, p <.001. Effect sizes for both years were moderate (.34 and.31, respectively) (Cohen, 1998). Discussion In this study we analyzed the demographic characteristics for students identified as gifted in one urban school district in the State of Texas for two academic years. In that analysis, statistically significant disparities were present between the ethnic composition of the school district and the gifted population. In generalizing the overall findings of this study to larger segments of the education community, it is important to note that this disparity is actually the norm within the majority of school districts in the United States (e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002). Though efforts should always be made to try and have a gifted population reflect the actual ethnic composition of a district, this problem plagues most K-12 public institutions across the United States. In addition to the demographic comparison, we also analyzed enrollment, student course selections, AP test participation rates, and AP test scores as they related to gifted and non-gifted students. In terms of enrollment, we observed that in both 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, gifted students were roughly four times more likely to enroll in an AP course than a non-identified student (81.0% to 16.8% in 2005-2006, and 83.6% to 19.9% in 2006-2007). In addition, gifted
students were substantially more likely to enroll in more than one course than their nonidentified peers. These findings could lead one to conclude that though the AP program in an open enrollment program which can benefit all students, it is certainly gifted students who are taking advantage of what the program has to offer. In terms of course selection, we did not find that gifted students were necessarily choosing courses which would provide them with an optimal match to their talents, as Van Tassel-Baska (2001) suggested in her endorsement of the AP program. Rather, what we observed was gifted and non-identified students choosing roughly the same classes in equal proportion. This situation probably has more to do with the limited number of AP courses offered by a secondary school than with personal preference and matching ability. However, if Gifted and Talented programs are genuinely trying to match the individual talents of their students to appropriate interventions, more research should be conducted in this area to determine whether or not the current offering of AP courses plays into the abilities of exceptional learners, or simply offers them opportunities for acceleration. In regard to AP test participation rates, we observed that gifted students were far more likely to take an AP exam than were non-identified students. In the 2005-2006 school year, the gifted students participation rate was 70.1% compared to 49.7% for non-identified students, and in 2006-2007 school year, the gifted students participation rate was 67.2% compared to 53.3% for non-identified students. Because participation on the AP exam is the only way a student can potentially earn college credit for taking the course, it is clear from these findings that gifted students were far more willing to engage in opportunities for acceleration than non-identified students. With the AP program as the vehicle for supporting such opportunities, it would
certainly seem to indicate its effectiveness as a secondary program option (Colangelo et al., 2004). Finally, in examining actual AP test scores, which are an indication of both success in the course and potential college credit, gifted students significantly outperformed their nonidentified peers. In the 2005-2006 school year, 78.4% of all tests taken by gifted students had a 3 or higher, compared to 49.2% for non-identified students, and in the 2006-2007 school year, 73.5% of all tests taken by gifted students had a 3 or higher, compared to 48.5% for nonidentified students. In addition, gifted students proportionately received three times as many perfect scores on their AP examinations (i.e. scored a 5 on the test) than non-identified students in each of the two years examined. Readers should view our findings as tentative in nature until replicated by additional research. Further research needs to be conducted, both in replicating and in extending this research, but also in understanding better the reasons behind student selection of specific AP courses. Moreover, a better understanding is needed for the reasons some students take AP exams whereas other students choose not to take the AP exams.
References Callahan, C. (2003). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs for talented students in American high schools: A focus on science and math (Research Monograph 03276). Storrs: University of Connecticut National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America s brightest students. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://nationdeceived.org/download.html College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service. (1999). Advanced Placement Program: 1999 Yearbook. New York: Author. College Board. (2008a). Bulletin for AP Students and Parents 2008-09. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html College Board. (2008b). Summary Report 2008: School AP Grade Distributions by Total and Ethnic Group. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2008.html Curry, W., MacDonald, W., & Morgan, R. (1999). The advanced placement program: Access to excellence. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(1), 17-23. Daniel, N., & Cox, J. (1992, April). International education for high ability students: An avenue to excellence. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 87-94.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent development during the high school years. Gifted Education International, 10(2), 60-64. Hansen, A. L. (2005). Research brief: Success in Advanced Placement course. The Principals Partnership. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.prinicipalspartnership.com Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students' perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199-216. Kaye, R. D. (2006). Progress in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate in SREB states. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://sreb.net/main/goals/publications/06e07-progress AP IB.pdf Klopfenstein, K. (2004). The Advanced Placement expansions of the 1990s: How did traditionally underserved students fare? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(68). Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epass/v12n68 Lichten, W. (2000). Whither Advanced Placement? Education Policy Analysis, 8(29). Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n29.html Morgan, R., & Ramist, L. (1998). Advanced Placement students in college: An investigation of course grades at 21 colleges. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Pyryt, M. C., Masharov, Y. P., & Feng, C. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing talents/gifts in science and technology. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H.
Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 453-471). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Sytsma, R. (2000). Gifted and Talented Programs in America's High Schools: A Preliminary Survey Report. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Spring, 11. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2001). The role of Advanced Placement in talent development. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 126-133. Vanderbrook, C. (2006). Intellectually gifted females and their perspective of lived experience in the AP and IB programs. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(3), 5-20.